ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and validation of a deep learning model for identifying high-quality laryngoscopic images.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- LUCID: Intelligent Informative Frame Selection in Otoscopy for Enhanced Diagnostic Utility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Real-Time AI-Based Assessment of Glottic Lesions During Flexible Laryngoscopy: Comparison with Expert Evaluation and Histopathology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laryngoscopy is essential for evaluating laryngeal pathology, particularly vocal fold lesions, but large endoscopic datasets often contain low-quality or irrelevant frames that hinder use. We developed and validated a deep learning model to automatically identify high-quality laryngoscopic images that clearly show the vocal folds. This retrospective study included 4711 images from 125 patients. Expert reviewers labeled images as low (3099; 65.8%), mid (698; 14.8%), or high quality (914; 19.4%). High-quality images were defined as those in which the entire vocal fold region was clearly visible, allowing definitive assessment of lesions. Eight pretrained networks—AlexNet, ResNet-50, MobileNetV2, ConvNeXt-tiny, Vision Transformer (ViT-B/16), DaViT, Swin Transformer V1-tiny, and V2-base—were fine-tuned using transfer learning. Performance was evaluated by accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, AUROC, and AUPRC. Swin Transformer V1-tiny showed the best binary classification performance (high vs. non-high quality): 95.1% accuracy, 84.9% precision, 91.3% recall, 87.9% F1, AUROC 0.979, and AUPRC 0.927. Grad-CAM was used for interpretability and confirmed focus on vocal folds and anterior commissure. External validation using the Laryngoscope8 dataset yielded 91.9% accuracy. The model enables efficient selection of high-quality images for clinical and research use. Its strong performance and simple architecture allow application to other endoscopic domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.